With the conclusion of ABAP's initial campaign to amend the unfairness of the new Staff Travel scheme, this blog is transferring to the ABAP website at:
http://www.abap.org.uk/
Please bookmark the site in your web browser.
Alternatively you can access the blog there directly by following this address:
http://www.abaporg.blogspot.com/
Accordingly, although this blog will remain available, comment on it is closed.
Finally, supporters will know that the Staff Travel Watch website is at:
http://www.ba-be-fair.com/
That website will remain open indefinitely and lead the campaign against the injustices of BA towards its pensioners; please keep a watch on the website.
In the meantime, may I thank everyone for their support and participation. The campaign may have failed in its original objectives but it has flushed out those who would seek to support BA against its pensioners and who have sought positions of influence on the various bodies to pursue agendas not conducive to the interests of retired staff.
Showing posts with label staff travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label staff travel. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Thursday, 14 August 2008
The Legal Opinion
Report by the ABAP Staff Travel Campaign Working Group (STCWG)
Last December the STCWG - consisting of BA pensioners around the world - began the campaign to get three changes made to the proposals contained in ST09. Contrary to the assertion promulgated by certain BA managers, we did not seek the wholesale abandonment of the document which we recognised has some attractive benefits - for some pensioners.
We sought then and continue to seek now, three simple and relatively minor changes:
1 the removal from existing pensioners of the limitation on their entitlement to Staff Travel to their period of service;
2 the change in the Staff Travel entitlements of widows and widowers of existing pensioners;
3 the continuation of the right of existing pensioners to bank Long Service awards they have earned.
3 the continuation of the right of existing pensioners to bank Long Service awards they have earned.
On 1st March 2008 the STCWG made an appeal for contributions to a Fighting Fund to support these objectives. The response to date has been overwhelming and demonstrates how widespread the feeling is against the parts of ST09 which unfairly and unnecessarily affect a few thousand elderly pensioners.
Since British Airways was relying so heavily on its assertion that it had a legal right to make these changes, the Working Group decided a legal opinion should be sought to examine the extent to which BA could rely on the law to force these punitive and pointless changes on us and which established tenets of British law limited what they wished to do.
The QC’s initial opinion was received last week and is being studied by the Working Group and our lawyers. As a result certain questions arising have been put back to the QC and her team and we are optimistic of the outcome.
ABAP has a track record of successful actions at law against BA. Perhaps personnel changes since the end of the last decade mean that none of BA’s present Management recalls personally that ABAP won its case against BA in the High Court. More recently we successfully prevented BA from combining the two pension schemes - a move that would have benefited no-one except BA and its shareholders.
But not all disputes are best settled in court. We knew that when we embarked on this campaign and said as much from the outset. That Staff Travel is not a contractual benefit has never been in question, but merely because BA claimed the right to vary the terms of staff travel - which most of our letters of severance or retirement reminded us it could do - did that also mean BA could withdraw entirely a benefit given since the 1930's - and could it do so in a way that affected some people differently to others? Could it oblige people who because of their age and circumstances to use a computer to access the information and any benefits to which they are entitled?
Our brief to the QC was to examine several aspects raised by ABAP members, by former very senior staff, and by supporters around the world and to also give us the benefit of her experience on aspects of relevant law which we’d not considered.
What is clear is that British Airways has been underhand and shifty in every aspect of this matter. From the fatuous "consultations" which were in fact secret briefings started three years ago under legally enforceable confidentiality agreements with chosen members of the unelected Retired Staff Liaison Council, right up to the "publication" of ST09, the defining document, British Airways has sought to obfuscate. This document wasn’t sent openly to each pensioner in the way that BA is obliged to tell us of changes to our pensions, but slipped into an FAQ section on a website which only pensioners with access to the Internet and a password could read. Months later some of the terms were also published in Touchdown, but we know that not every pensioner receives Touchdown.
BA has every reason not to attract publicity because the effects of ST09 on some of the oldest pensioners will mean a complete change in the way they spend the rest of their lives. In fact it isn’t justified on any sensible ground - and certainly not on the dishonest claims made by BA that it will "save money". It is simply a selective, punitive change that will adversely affect a group of pensioners whilst making no difference whatsoever to the bottom line of the company’s accounts.
There is simply no logic to the move; on the contrary, in exchange for amending the three clauses of ST09 affecting a few thousand pensioners, BA would gain the support of all 47,000 pensioners who would feel it had done "the right thing".
In the next few weeks the STCWG will publish the next stage of its campaign. It will involve every pensioner and every member of staff for if BA succeeds in screwing a couple of thousand helpless pensioners out of a few subload flights they thought they’d earned over the years, where will they stop?
If you’re a pensioner, support us because this fight is the one before BA tries to steal your pension again. Don’t think they won’t try if given the opportunity.
If you’re a current staff member, support us because you will be a pensioner one day - maybe, if it suits British Airways, sooner than you thought.
A similar document to this has been posted on the ABAP website and is being sent in hard copy to all ABAP "postal" members. If any pensioners or present staff have friends or relatives in BA and can get copies of the document posted on all noticeboards it will help immensely.
Monday, 12 May 2008
The 24-hour rolling news syndrome
Sometimes campaigns like that ABAP’s Staff Travel Working Group is engaged on seem to have lost momentum, to be drifting or be losing direction. It is what can be called the 24 hour rolling news syndrome. In this syndrome a relationship is formed between the ease or speed of communication and the need for news to fill the space created by that speed. Radio 5 in the UK is probably the classic example.
Created effectively on Radio 4 FM during the first Gulf war, the end of that conflict showed the problem in stark reality and were the BBC not publicly funded but had to earn its revenues there is little doubt that Radio 5 would never have existed. In fact, once the conflict was finished most people were content to return to their traditional news sources but the BBC decided that it would extend its taxpayer-funded empire and established a permanent 24-hour, rolling news station on AM, taking over frequencies formerly used by regional radio services. At once it was clear that without a war to report by the minute, news itself was not enough to hold the listener and Radio 5 added sport, and longer interviews. Ten years later the extent to which it has failed in its original brief is evidenced by the continued existence of news services on all the remaining radio channels.
In our case the syndrome manifests itself by creating in the minds of our supporters the idea that absence of news means absence of action or even worse. The truth isn’t like that at all, but is simply that some things take longer to happen than others. In the BBC Radio 5 equivalent, we’ve reached a lull in the conflict; in reality we are waiting for results from our legal advisers.
And in our case this process is made slower still by the proper need to finance our activities separately from the main ABAP financial resources. Whereas a large commercial firm could simply seek a legal opinion and deal with the costs later, we have to establish absolute costs before the event to ensure that we don’t spend what we don’t have.
That in turn is why the campaign to raise funds by individual contributions continues with such importance.
Evidence that we may be having some effect on British Airways management comes from the number of people who took your writer aside at the event reported below and to various degrees conveyed advice or straightforward threats that he should abandon this campaign. Various penalties were suggested. More significantly, none of those issuing the advice/threat was prepared to be named. Frankly, like spoiled ballot papers, such views or threats don’t count. Furthermore I reiterate my invitation to publish on my blog the views of anyone wishing to offer their point of view. Any such views will either be published in full or not published at all and this will only occur if they are deemed by my legal advisor to result in legal liability. Furthermore, the medium through which the blog is published (Blogspot) does not permit amendment of the comments submitted ie they cannot be censored.
The additional news I can publish is that Dayne Markham and your writer were invited to speak recently at a luncheon of former senior BOAC managers and board members - and informally meet with some equivalent former BEA colleagues lunching at the same time in the same place. We summarised the campaign to date and Dayne explained why ABAP’s Committee felt that while the Staff Travel issue clearly falls within the competence and limits of ABAP’s constitution, it was necessary to draw a distinction between ABAP’s ongoing negotiations with BA Pensions and the Working Group’s campaign to even start negotiating with BA over the Staff Travel issue. All our presentations, both formal and informal were warmly received, generally supported in the same way that support has been throughout ie in relation to the extent to which individuals are affected by the proposed changes.
The meetings did produce some specific contacts which the ABAP Working Group will be pursuing urgently and the results of those efforts will be reported here in due course.
Inevitably there is a minority view that all this isn’t worth the candle, that questioning and seeking to change the mind of a powerful and worldwide company is a futile waste of time; some ludicrously continue to suggest that this is driven by individual grudge. The last point is so stupid that comment is almost unnecessary; suffice to say that here and in the blog the writer has consistently said that the issue is not about personalities but about unfairness. They cite our recognition that we may not succeed as a reason not to try. That these same people once led BOAC and BEA through some extraordinarily difficult times both operationally and financially with tenacity and wisdom can only suggest that there may truly be no country for old men, or certainly for old brains. For our part it is enough to reiterate the caution to those opposing our (futile) objectives in British Airways that the adversary who has nothing to lose is a dangerous adversary indeed.
This item is also appearing in the news section of the ABAP website.
Created effectively on Radio 4 FM during the first Gulf war, the end of that conflict showed the problem in stark reality and were the BBC not publicly funded but had to earn its revenues there is little doubt that Radio 5 would never have existed. In fact, once the conflict was finished most people were content to return to their traditional news sources but the BBC decided that it would extend its taxpayer-funded empire and established a permanent 24-hour, rolling news station on AM, taking over frequencies formerly used by regional radio services. At once it was clear that without a war to report by the minute, news itself was not enough to hold the listener and Radio 5 added sport, and longer interviews. Ten years later the extent to which it has failed in its original brief is evidenced by the continued existence of news services on all the remaining radio channels.
In our case the syndrome manifests itself by creating in the minds of our supporters the idea that absence of news means absence of action or even worse. The truth isn’t like that at all, but is simply that some things take longer to happen than others. In the BBC Radio 5 equivalent, we’ve reached a lull in the conflict; in reality we are waiting for results from our legal advisers.
And in our case this process is made slower still by the proper need to finance our activities separately from the main ABAP financial resources. Whereas a large commercial firm could simply seek a legal opinion and deal with the costs later, we have to establish absolute costs before the event to ensure that we don’t spend what we don’t have.
That in turn is why the campaign to raise funds by individual contributions continues with such importance.
Evidence that we may be having some effect on British Airways management comes from the number of people who took your writer aside at the event reported below and to various degrees conveyed advice or straightforward threats that he should abandon this campaign. Various penalties were suggested. More significantly, none of those issuing the advice/threat was prepared to be named. Frankly, like spoiled ballot papers, such views or threats don’t count. Furthermore I reiterate my invitation to publish on my blog the views of anyone wishing to offer their point of view. Any such views will either be published in full or not published at all and this will only occur if they are deemed by my legal advisor to result in legal liability. Furthermore, the medium through which the blog is published (Blogspot) does not permit amendment of the comments submitted ie they cannot be censored.
The additional news I can publish is that Dayne Markham and your writer were invited to speak recently at a luncheon of former senior BOAC managers and board members - and informally meet with some equivalent former BEA colleagues lunching at the same time in the same place. We summarised the campaign to date and Dayne explained why ABAP’s Committee felt that while the Staff Travel issue clearly falls within the competence and limits of ABAP’s constitution, it was necessary to draw a distinction between ABAP’s ongoing negotiations with BA Pensions and the Working Group’s campaign to even start negotiating with BA over the Staff Travel issue. All our presentations, both formal and informal were warmly received, generally supported in the same way that support has been throughout ie in relation to the extent to which individuals are affected by the proposed changes.
The meetings did produce some specific contacts which the ABAP Working Group will be pursuing urgently and the results of those efforts will be reported here in due course.
Inevitably there is a minority view that all this isn’t worth the candle, that questioning and seeking to change the mind of a powerful and worldwide company is a futile waste of time; some ludicrously continue to suggest that this is driven by individual grudge. The last point is so stupid that comment is almost unnecessary; suffice to say that here and in the blog the writer has consistently said that the issue is not about personalities but about unfairness. They cite our recognition that we may not succeed as a reason not to try. That these same people once led BOAC and BEA through some extraordinarily difficult times both operationally and financially with tenacity and wisdom can only suggest that there may truly be no country for old men, or certainly for old brains. For our part it is enough to reiterate the caution to those opposing our (futile) objectives in British Airways that the adversary who has nothing to lose is a dangerous adversary indeed.
This item is also appearing in the news section of the ABAP website.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Liaison Council still dancing to BA's tune
I find I have a unique perspective on two contrasting faces of British Airways.
On the one hand I am told by the ABAP treasurer that contributions to the Staff Travel Fighting Fund have been flowing into ABAP from BA pensioners around the world.
On the other, Sigrid Mapp, the Chairperson of the Liaison Council first refuses to communicate with either of the two people authorised by ABAP to speak and act on its behalf and later, when she is forced to say something, replies that she can’t possibly tell us anything about a reply to the letter she claims to have written to Mr Walsh in January until the next Liaison Council meeting in April.
ABAP has exercised extreme patience and accepted the procrastination of the Liaison Council since it claims to share our interests. But enough is enough and the time has come to face the fact that Mrs Mapp and her Liaison Council continue to dance to her master’s voice for continued delay is of benefit only to British Airways.
In what was likely to be futile desperation I wrote to Mrs Mapp, first dealing with her refusal to communicate with us:
A reasonable person might find it strange that someone who claims to represent pensioners only wants to correspond with those she chooses. Do you not think your actions might be seen by the pensioner universe as somewhat arrogant?
The facts of the matter seem to be these.
On 15 Feb you told us (ABAP) that you'd written to Mr Walsh in January on behalf of pensioners regarding the Staff Travel 2009 proposals and that he'd not yet replied.
On 3 Mar you wrote that you would reply on 13 Mar.
On 13 Mar you wrote and although it wasn't clear, it appeared that you might have had a response from Mr Walsh but you gave no details.
On the same date (and authorised by ABAP) I wrote and enquired if you had in fact received a response and if so what it was - as you'd promised to tell us back in February.
Now you decline to tell us until the next Liaison Council meeting.
Your excuse is that it's because you don't like the tone of the ABAP website. Frankly that is hardly your affair - or is it that your masters in British Airways don't like the tone of the website? Well, frankly it's none of their business either. What has been written there is the truth. If that is not the case and there are errors of fact, I have offered correction and apology but none has been requested. What we have done is to examine British Airways' excuses (like Clare Hatchwell's fatuous claim that the new arrangements were to save money) and to demolish them strand by strand. Other claims have been made by British Airways which, when we decide to publish, we will also refute item by item.
The fact is that British Airways has behaved despicably and unfairly, without any honourable or even sensible motivation or justification.
In your previous message to me you revealed in a sentence that may well come back to haunt you that "British Airways management knew how many pensioners would be affected by these changes and also the unhappiness it would cause".
Is that the height of British Airway’s management achievement - to define and penalise a specific group of people who they judge cannot respond, merely to show how big they are? That is the mindset of the playground bully. Is that how British Airways management wants to be regarded?
It seems incredible to conceive but it is clear that at a time when the airline is facing some of the biggest challenges of its existence, the CEO and other senior managers in British Airways have time to devise little vindictive plans to hurt a few thousand pensioners - for what? Creating - or
for that matter, resolving - this dispute isn't going to affect the bottom line.
It isn't going to make it easier to compete with European airlines flying UK - to the USA.
It isn't going to solve the missing baggage catastrophe. (Note this was written before the T5 fiasco.)
And meanwhile what is really happening? It is a picture of financial lunacy in which:
- Air France walks away with a share of the London - Los Angeles market,
- the BA European regional network is run down and eventually given away to FlyBe,
- Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates etc fly from Manchester, Birmingham and
Newcastle to Dubai several times every day,
- second level carriers like Zoom fly full aircraft from Cardiff, Manchester
and Glasgow to Toronto,
whilst the management of the premier British Airline labours over a scheme that will spoil the retirement of a few thousand former employees. If it wasn't true it would be called far-fetched.
The time has surely come Mrs Mapp to leave the asylum to the inmates - and if you do one honourable thing, join us.
On the other hand if you refuse to deal with pensioners (as the chairperson of ABAP has requested) then I seriously suggest you should consider whether you have any moral right to maintain your position as chairman of the Liaison Committee."
A second call for contributions has been made and pensioners who have already responded so generously might wonder why this was necessary. In fact it was this writer’s fault, in confusing explanation of the basis on which contributions would be handled. That confusion generated a large number of messages from pensioners intending to contribute but thinking that they should wait until later.
To maximise the value of contributions (and because contributors can verify their clearance reference their bank statement) they are not being acknowledged individually.
The next moves in our campaign are under way. A few of the many offers to help on the Working Group will shortly be taken up to form a small but representative group. Its first action will be to explore with a leading QC the various legal challenges that will be made against BA’s action in Staff Travel 2009. It will also lay the foundations of the next stage of the action which will involve everybody sympathetic to the inequity of the BA decision. Watch this blog and the ABAP website for news of how you can become involved.
Finally I think it relevant to comment on a view that has been expressed on a number of occasions regarding the level of sympathy we might expect from the general public who regard Staff Travel as a privileged, gold-plated perk? Of course air travel is a desirable benefit but the public should understand that most of it is only subload and also that we still pay the full taxes. Not only that but we also save BA money because if we weren’t occupying those subload seats BA would be paying the taxes due itself. Think about that next time you’re at the checkout behind a Tesco employee and in exchange for her Staff ID Card she gets a cash discount on the groceries she’s bought.
On the one hand I am told by the ABAP treasurer that contributions to the Staff Travel Fighting Fund have been flowing into ABAP from BA pensioners around the world.
On the other, Sigrid Mapp, the Chairperson of the Liaison Council first refuses to communicate with either of the two people authorised by ABAP to speak and act on its behalf and later, when she is forced to say something, replies that she can’t possibly tell us anything about a reply to the letter she claims to have written to Mr Walsh in January until the next Liaison Council meeting in April.
ABAP has exercised extreme patience and accepted the procrastination of the Liaison Council since it claims to share our interests. But enough is enough and the time has come to face the fact that Mrs Mapp and her Liaison Council continue to dance to her master’s voice for continued delay is of benefit only to British Airways.
In what was likely to be futile desperation I wrote to Mrs Mapp, first dealing with her refusal to communicate with us:
A reasonable person might find it strange that someone who claims to represent pensioners only wants to correspond with those she chooses. Do you not think your actions might be seen by the pensioner universe as somewhat arrogant?
The facts of the matter seem to be these.
On 15 Feb you told us (ABAP) that you'd written to Mr Walsh in January on behalf of pensioners regarding the Staff Travel 2009 proposals and that he'd not yet replied.
On 3 Mar you wrote that you would reply on 13 Mar.
On 13 Mar you wrote and although it wasn't clear, it appeared that you might have had a response from Mr Walsh but you gave no details.
On the same date (and authorised by ABAP) I wrote and enquired if you had in fact received a response and if so what it was - as you'd promised to tell us back in February.
Now you decline to tell us until the next Liaison Council meeting.
Your excuse is that it's because you don't like the tone of the ABAP website. Frankly that is hardly your affair - or is it that your masters in British Airways don't like the tone of the website? Well, frankly it's none of their business either. What has been written there is the truth. If that is not the case and there are errors of fact, I have offered correction and apology but none has been requested. What we have done is to examine British Airways' excuses (like Clare Hatchwell's fatuous claim that the new arrangements were to save money) and to demolish them strand by strand. Other claims have been made by British Airways which, when we decide to publish, we will also refute item by item.
The fact is that British Airways has behaved despicably and unfairly, without any honourable or even sensible motivation or justification.
In your previous message to me you revealed in a sentence that may well come back to haunt you that "British Airways management knew how many pensioners would be affected by these changes and also the unhappiness it would cause".
Is that the height of British Airway’s management achievement - to define and penalise a specific group of people who they judge cannot respond, merely to show how big they are? That is the mindset of the playground bully. Is that how British Airways management wants to be regarded?
It seems incredible to conceive but it is clear that at a time when the airline is facing some of the biggest challenges of its existence, the CEO and other senior managers in British Airways have time to devise little vindictive plans to hurt a few thousand pensioners - for what? Creating - or
for that matter, resolving - this dispute isn't going to affect the bottom line.
It isn't going to make it easier to compete with European airlines flying UK - to the USA.
It isn't going to solve the missing baggage catastrophe. (Note this was written before the T5 fiasco.)
And meanwhile what is really happening? It is a picture of financial lunacy in which:
- Air France walks away with a share of the London - Los Angeles market,
- the BA European regional network is run down and eventually given away to FlyBe,
- Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates etc fly from Manchester, Birmingham and
Newcastle to Dubai several times every day,
- second level carriers like Zoom fly full aircraft from Cardiff, Manchester
and Glasgow to Toronto,
whilst the management of the premier British Airline labours over a scheme that will spoil the retirement of a few thousand former employees. If it wasn't true it would be called far-fetched.
The time has surely come Mrs Mapp to leave the asylum to the inmates - and if you do one honourable thing, join us.
On the other hand if you refuse to deal with pensioners (as the chairperson of ABAP has requested) then I seriously suggest you should consider whether you have any moral right to maintain your position as chairman of the Liaison Committee."
A second call for contributions has been made and pensioners who have already responded so generously might wonder why this was necessary. In fact it was this writer’s fault, in confusing explanation of the basis on which contributions would be handled. That confusion generated a large number of messages from pensioners intending to contribute but thinking that they should wait until later.
To maximise the value of contributions (and because contributors can verify their clearance reference their bank statement) they are not being acknowledged individually.
The next moves in our campaign are under way. A few of the many offers to help on the Working Group will shortly be taken up to form a small but representative group. Its first action will be to explore with a leading QC the various legal challenges that will be made against BA’s action in Staff Travel 2009. It will also lay the foundations of the next stage of the action which will involve everybody sympathetic to the inequity of the BA decision. Watch this blog and the ABAP website for news of how you can become involved.
Finally I think it relevant to comment on a view that has been expressed on a number of occasions regarding the level of sympathy we might expect from the general public who regard Staff Travel as a privileged, gold-plated perk? Of course air travel is a desirable benefit but the public should understand that most of it is only subload and also that we still pay the full taxes. Not only that but we also save BA money because if we weren’t occupying those subload seats BA would be paying the taxes due itself. Think about that next time you’re at the checkout behind a Tesco employee and in exchange for her Staff ID Card she gets a cash discount on the groceries she’s bought.
Monday, 3 March 2008
ABAP acts
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
This posting is appearing here and on the news page of the ABAP website at http://www.abap.org.uk/
Readers of the blog will know that at present the Liaison Council (which BA appoints and regards as the organisation through which it would like to deal with pensioners) has written to the CEO, Mr Walsh, expressing (it says) our dissatisfaction with Staff Travel 2009. Their letter, written in January (and which we have not seen since the LC deals secretly with BA), has not received a reply - which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s written personally to Mr Walsh.
ABAP has therefore decided to move the matter forward to the next stage independently and has established a Staff Travel Fighting Fund to place the campaign on a proper financial basis. As explained in the blog, although initially this may initially appear to be a rather mean-minded approach it should be remembered that many of those pensioners affected by Staff Travel 2009 are not ABAP members (since they don’t receive UK pensions), and conversely many ABAP members are not adversely affected by Staff Travel 2009. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to use existing ABAP funds for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Even more importantly it means that all money raised for the Staff Travel Fighting Fund is to be ring-fenced. This means that not only will those funds only be used for the specific campaign but, since that campaign has defined and time-sensitive objectives, any excess raised will be refunded fairly to the donors at the end of the campaign. The intention is that the same amount of money will be contributed by each person, up to the full amount of the individual donation. Any part of each donation that remains will be refunded to the contributor. It will not be merged into general ABAP funds.
Furthermore, the campaign’s initial aims and objectives are also strictly defined and thus donors will know that their funds will not be used for activities of which they are unaware.
We hear repeatedly that British Airways doubts that more than a couple of hundred pensioners and staff actually care about Staff Travel 2009. The ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund will show to everyone, including British Airways, how widespread is the concern, not merely at the unfairness of the specific proposals but the cavalier way in which they have been imposed. Staff and pensioners, unaffected by Staff Travel 2009, are worried that if BA can enforce this change without censure or protest, what other changes could they make with no reaction from pensioners or staff.
This is therefore a request for money, sufficient money to enable ABAP to examine the precise legal bases on which Staff Travel 2009 can be challenged and to report back to everyone concerned what those options are, the strength of the argument and the likely cost of initiating proceedings, initially in the British Courts and eventually to the appropriate European Court.
Obviously we don’t wish to publish chapter and verse which would merely give British Airways the benefit of our research. However the legal bases include custom and practice, general precedents in UK law, specific precedents in European law and age discrimination in both jurisdictions.
However legal action is not the only route and if the advice and opinion is that the legal challenges are not sufficiently sound or might cost more than we can reasonably raise, the matter will not come to end.
Again for now we don’t propose to publish or discuss openly the course of action which we might take but it would be action on a scale that money raised by this call for funds could be used for.
Please therefore give as generously as you can - not on the basis of an annual subscription for I don’t believe this will be a matter that lasts like pensions, but rather as a one-off donation demonstrating in money terms your feeling about the company’s actions. Please include your email address where possible.
As ABAP members know, ABAP accounts in sterling. If funds are received in foreign currencies they will be converted to sterling at the best rates available on the day. Any pro rata refunds will be expressed and made in sterling also so whilst we don’t wish to discourage financial support from those whose lives are fully engaged in a foreign financial environment, we do want you to be aware of the small costs involved in handling such subscriptions.
In the next few weeks ABAP will publish its proposals for handling the Staff Travel 2009 in terms of manpower. At that time it is likely that calls will be made for volunteers to form a working group (or any term avoiding the words "sub-committee" since this matter is unconnected with pensions, ABAP’s original concern) to decide on the precise action to be taken. This group will form the body which will ultimately decide on the expenditure of the Staff Travel Fighting Fund. As previously expressed, although it would be desirable for at least one representative from the ABAP committee to be on the working group, the group should also reflect the universe of concerned and affected pensioners internationally. Geographical location is not an impediment to active membership although time zones might mean a few early morning or late night conference calls for some!
Please make all contributions to the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund payable to:
ABAP
and send them to:
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
Unit 10
Solent Industrial Estate
Hedge End
Southampton
SO30 2FX
Money received like this will be transferred to a special high interest account and only used for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Many thanks for your support.
This posting is appearing here and on the news page of the ABAP website at http://www.abap.org.uk/
Readers of the blog will know that at present the Liaison Council (which BA appoints and regards as the organisation through which it would like to deal with pensioners) has written to the CEO, Mr Walsh, expressing (it says) our dissatisfaction with Staff Travel 2009. Their letter, written in January (and which we have not seen since the LC deals secretly with BA), has not received a reply - which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s written personally to Mr Walsh.
ABAP has therefore decided to move the matter forward to the next stage independently and has established a Staff Travel Fighting Fund to place the campaign on a proper financial basis. As explained in the blog, although initially this may initially appear to be a rather mean-minded approach it should be remembered that many of those pensioners affected by Staff Travel 2009 are not ABAP members (since they don’t receive UK pensions), and conversely many ABAP members are not adversely affected by Staff Travel 2009. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to use existing ABAP funds for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Even more importantly it means that all money raised for the Staff Travel Fighting Fund is to be ring-fenced. This means that not only will those funds only be used for the specific campaign but, since that campaign has defined and time-sensitive objectives, any excess raised will be refunded fairly to the donors at the end of the campaign. The intention is that the same amount of money will be contributed by each person, up to the full amount of the individual donation. Any part of each donation that remains will be refunded to the contributor. It will not be merged into general ABAP funds.
Furthermore, the campaign’s initial aims and objectives are also strictly defined and thus donors will know that their funds will not be used for activities of which they are unaware.
We hear repeatedly that British Airways doubts that more than a couple of hundred pensioners and staff actually care about Staff Travel 2009. The ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund will show to everyone, including British Airways, how widespread is the concern, not merely at the unfairness of the specific proposals but the cavalier way in which they have been imposed. Staff and pensioners, unaffected by Staff Travel 2009, are worried that if BA can enforce this change without censure or protest, what other changes could they make with no reaction from pensioners or staff.
This is therefore a request for money, sufficient money to enable ABAP to examine the precise legal bases on which Staff Travel 2009 can be challenged and to report back to everyone concerned what those options are, the strength of the argument and the likely cost of initiating proceedings, initially in the British Courts and eventually to the appropriate European Court.
Obviously we don’t wish to publish chapter and verse which would merely give British Airways the benefit of our research. However the legal bases include custom and practice, general precedents in UK law, specific precedents in European law and age discrimination in both jurisdictions.
However legal action is not the only route and if the advice and opinion is that the legal challenges are not sufficiently sound or might cost more than we can reasonably raise, the matter will not come to end.
Again for now we don’t propose to publish or discuss openly the course of action which we might take but it would be action on a scale that money raised by this call for funds could be used for.
Please therefore give as generously as you can - not on the basis of an annual subscription for I don’t believe this will be a matter that lasts like pensions, but rather as a one-off donation demonstrating in money terms your feeling about the company’s actions. Please include your email address where possible.
As ABAP members know, ABAP accounts in sterling. If funds are received in foreign currencies they will be converted to sterling at the best rates available on the day. Any pro rata refunds will be expressed and made in sterling also so whilst we don’t wish to discourage financial support from those whose lives are fully engaged in a foreign financial environment, we do want you to be aware of the small costs involved in handling such subscriptions.
In the next few weeks ABAP will publish its proposals for handling the Staff Travel 2009 in terms of manpower. At that time it is likely that calls will be made for volunteers to form a working group (or any term avoiding the words "sub-committee" since this matter is unconnected with pensions, ABAP’s original concern) to decide on the precise action to be taken. This group will form the body which will ultimately decide on the expenditure of the Staff Travel Fighting Fund. As previously expressed, although it would be desirable for at least one representative from the ABAP committee to be on the working group, the group should also reflect the universe of concerned and affected pensioners internationally. Geographical location is not an impediment to active membership although time zones might mean a few early morning or late night conference calls for some!
Please make all contributions to the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund payable to:
ABAP
and send them to:
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
Unit 10
Solent Industrial Estate
Hedge End
Southampton
SO30 2FX
Money received like this will be transferred to a special high interest account and only used for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Many thanks for your support.
Monday, 25 February 2008
The Liaison Council responds
Evidently the information that ABAP had that the Liaison Council was meeting with British Airways last week was incorrect. Mrs Mapp, Chairman of the Liaison Council, has responded with the following less than rivetting news.
"The British Airways Retired Staff Liaison Council will continue to fulfil its constitutional role of representing the interests of the members of the British Airways retired community in all matters affecting them.
We were, during the confidential talks with BA which stretched over 3 years, fully aware of the grief the proposed new policy would cause to many retirees, and I can assure you that we worked extremely hard to get improved conditions but eventually BA put an end to the talks and decided to impose their plans with only small adjustments.
We wrote to Willie Walsh again in January making a plea for certain positive changes to the policy, but we have not received a reply to date. Should the response be negative, it won't have been for want of trying!"
Readers will make up their own minds about how hard the Liaison Council has worked and how effective the "plea" they made in January might be.
No doubt many will be underwhelmed by the fatuous claim that "the Liaison Council represents pensioners in all matters affecting them" since it conspicuously failed to do anything about the attack on our pensions by British Airways in the past and they were more recent willing to "consult" on our behalf under the duress of a Confidentiality Agreement. The Liaison Council still hasn't explained what was confidential other than its cosy little relationship with the company. The fact is that had it really had our interests in mind and refused to be gagged we would have had up to three more years notice of this travesty. Even now, Mrs Mapp would like to only communicate with us through the Chair of ABAP - so much for their accessibility to the people they claim to represent.
The Committee of ABAP (which genuinely represents Pensioners’ interests) is co-ordinating its response though clearly it will not involve the Liaison Council. Certain members of the Committee have been out of the country until very recently but all are expected to be present at the next scheduled Committee meeting today. Following that meeting an announcement will be made and communicated to you via the blog and/or the ABAP website. Almost certainly that will involve a mass appeal to our individual Members of Parliament. Their current addresses / e-mail addresses can be checked at:
http://www.parliament.uk/
The Committee of ABAP has made it clear that we cannot expect any financial help from existing funds. Whist initially that has a rather dog-in-the-manger feel, it has the advantage that we can ask everybody, ABAP members as well as non-members, to support the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund.
It also means that since this fight will either be won or lost in the next few months, subscribers can insist that their donations are only used for that purpose and that if anything remains in the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund after the campaign has been fought shall be refunded to the subscribers pro rata. I hope it also means people will be able to respond knowing that their funds will only be used for the specific purpose. Obviously the more generously you are able to support the fund the more effective it can be.
Incidentally no funds will come to this blog or the writer and will be dealt with solely by the ABAP Treasurer and in accordance with the rules covering such organisations.
Expect to read news from ABAP on the ABAP website at:
http://www.abap.org.uk/
in the next few days.
"The British Airways Retired Staff Liaison Council will continue to fulfil its constitutional role of representing the interests of the members of the British Airways retired community in all matters affecting them.
We were, during the confidential talks with BA which stretched over 3 years, fully aware of the grief the proposed new policy would cause to many retirees, and I can assure you that we worked extremely hard to get improved conditions but eventually BA put an end to the talks and decided to impose their plans with only small adjustments.
We wrote to Willie Walsh again in January making a plea for certain positive changes to the policy, but we have not received a reply to date. Should the response be negative, it won't have been for want of trying!"
Readers will make up their own minds about how hard the Liaison Council has worked and how effective the "plea" they made in January might be.
No doubt many will be underwhelmed by the fatuous claim that "the Liaison Council represents pensioners in all matters affecting them" since it conspicuously failed to do anything about the attack on our pensions by British Airways in the past and they were more recent willing to "consult" on our behalf under the duress of a Confidentiality Agreement. The Liaison Council still hasn't explained what was confidential other than its cosy little relationship with the company. The fact is that had it really had our interests in mind and refused to be gagged we would have had up to three more years notice of this travesty. Even now, Mrs Mapp would like to only communicate with us through the Chair of ABAP - so much for their accessibility to the people they claim to represent.
The Committee of ABAP (which genuinely represents Pensioners’ interests) is co-ordinating its response though clearly it will not involve the Liaison Council. Certain members of the Committee have been out of the country until very recently but all are expected to be present at the next scheduled Committee meeting today. Following that meeting an announcement will be made and communicated to you via the blog and/or the ABAP website. Almost certainly that will involve a mass appeal to our individual Members of Parliament. Their current addresses / e-mail addresses can be checked at:
http://www.parliament.uk/
The Committee of ABAP has made it clear that we cannot expect any financial help from existing funds. Whist initially that has a rather dog-in-the-manger feel, it has the advantage that we can ask everybody, ABAP members as well as non-members, to support the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund.
It also means that since this fight will either be won or lost in the next few months, subscribers can insist that their donations are only used for that purpose and that if anything remains in the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund after the campaign has been fought shall be refunded to the subscribers pro rata. I hope it also means people will be able to respond knowing that their funds will only be used for the specific purpose. Obviously the more generously you are able to support the fund the more effective it can be.
Incidentally no funds will come to this blog or the writer and will be dealt with solely by the ABAP Treasurer and in accordance with the rules covering such organisations.
Expect to read news from ABAP on the ABAP website at:
http://www.abap.org.uk/
in the next few days.
Friday, 1 February 2008
The first step in the campaign
ABAP has agreed that the Liaison Committee chaired by Sigrid Mapp which has a meeting scheduled with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 will fire the first salvo in our campaign to get the unacceptable elements of the Staff Travel 2009 proposal withdrawn.
You will have your own views on the potential effectiveness of this approach given that Ms Mapp and her Committee were, apparently, the "pensioners" with whom BA "consulted" before publishing the scheme. Nevertheless the results of that meeting will give ABAP a good idea of the company's attitude and most importantly whether they have seriously thought through all the implications of their proposal or whether it was hatched up on the back of a fag packet.
Dayne Markham for the Committee of ABAP agreed that I should contact Sigrid Mapp and effectively brief her on our position - a briefing drawn up from the many messages and letters I have received on behalf of ABAP in the past few weeks.
I'm quite sure that some people will feel I have not properly reflected their specific position or view but any concerted action over a matter like this which hits different people in different ways is unlikely to completely satisfy everyone. So if you're one who feels improperly represented please accept my apologies in advance and give me your understanding if not your 100% approval.
This is the message I sent to Sigrid Mapp:
Dear Sigrid
I am webmaster of the ABAP website and the person asked by ABAP to co-ordinate the activity on the specific issue of BA's Staff Travel 2009. I understand you are meeting with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 and have undertaken to ABAP to raise with him the considerable outrage there is from pensioners around the world. Dayne Markham, my main contact on the ABAP committee tells me that he has passed you some numbers of people who are in touch with me directly and an estimate of those who are in touch through those people.
Since these things are changing daily let me update you. I currently have direct contacts from over 100 people. Additionally two regions of the Retired Staff Association have contacted to give us their support and others are meeting to consider doing to in the very near future.
Each pensioner obviously feels most strongly about the aspects of the proposed scheme that affects them and no-one is ignoring the fact that the proposed changes also give some pensioners small improvements in their entitlements, but there is a common thread about which everyone is upset and that is the eligibility.
Eligibility
In this respect the principal objection is the inequity of the proposed changes. Quite apart from the detail, there is no logical reason why the scheme has been adopted with any inequalities in at all. In my blog which is available for you and your colleagues to read at
http://bastafftravel.blogspot.com (Note no "www")
I draw the comparison like this; if the Chancellor announces an increase in the standard rate of income tax, we're all affected but after a few days of press fuming, we all get on with it. On the other hand, if he announces a change that will penalise the poor or advantage the rich, the action raises a reaction from the population which far outweighs the number of people actually involved.
In just the same way, by including elements which mean that some people are disadvantaged while others are not BA has made a rod for its own back. The group on which the change in eligibility impinges is typically:
- amongst the oldest former staff. Ironically those who are least likely to be using their Staff Travel privileges very much, those who are likely to be the soonest to decide that travelling, especially long-distance is not for them and those who are most likely to die sooner than most other pensioners. In other words a small and declining number of people;
- amongst those who left the airline when it was seeking a reduction in staff numbers during the late 70's, 80's and early 90's - who feel they helped the airline when they could just as well have hung on, put in their service and let the airline worry about its staff costs. These people made the decision to accept severance with four things in mind. Firstly was their chance of continued employment on the open market. Secondly, was the lump sum which the company offered them. Thirdly was a deferred pension and fourthly the restitution of the Staff Travel entitlements once they started drawing their pension. They planned their lives with these four elements in mind and are extremely angry at the company deciding at a whim to withdraw one of those elements;
- amongst those are flying crew who were obliged by law to retire from the company at 55. These people are doubly penalised by the new scheme. Compared with other ground staff not only did they retire with up to 10 years less qualification under the new scheme's eligibility, but they also qualified 10 years earlier than other staff. That means that a senior member of management could have up to 20 years more eligibility under this scheme than a member of flying crew.
Is Staff Travel a non-contractual benefit?
The company is a great pains to emphasise that it regards Staff Travel as a non-contractual benefit which can be amended or withdrawn without notice. However, this was not always so and I have copies of letters of severance to retired staff which do not make this clear at all - no mention is made of the possibility that the entitlement can be withdrawn. If the company cannot present documentation that would satisfy a court of law that Staff Travel has always been a non-contractual entitlement it cannot morally (and perhaps legally) use that as a justification for changing the rules retrospectively.
Has Staff Travel become a right by Custom and Practice?
Staff Travel has been a benefit of employment since before WW2 - I have been offered a witnessed affidavit by the elderly wife of a former BOAC manager who recalls travelling on a rebated staff ticket to see relatives in Australia in the early 1930's. I accept that Custom and Practice is a tenuous principle on which to base a logical argument. However if the custom and practice has been extant for almost as long as there has been an airline industry, the principle may be more sound.
Why make the changes retrospective at all?
The company has been disingenuous to the point of naivety in many of the things it has written to staff. In particular is the justification for taking this action. I draw your attention to the third element of my blog at the address above in which I demolish the fatuous arguments written by Clare Hatchwell, Staff Travel Manager, to a pensioner who asked her why these actions were being taken. I won't waste your time by repeating the blog here, merely ask you to read it in detail. My blog includes not merely a demolition of Ms Hatchwell's nonsense but a suggestion which would make an impact on BA's costs in running Staff Travel which would be immediate and fair - that is to limit the number of 90% subload trips any staff, former staff or interline passengers can make in one year. It wouldn't be popular with either existing or former staff - I know some of both groups who will find that irksome to say the least, but it would be fair and it would reduce the costs of Staff Travel.
A reasonable request and practical propositions.
In presenting these strongly held objections on behalf of the pensioners involved, I am not being impractical. I realise that BA wants to introduce a scheme that is as close to that it has proposed for two reasons, firstly it will lose least "face" and secondly it will mean the fewest changes to the details already published.
On behalf of the pensioners I therefore propose that BA changes the scheme in just these two respects:
1 It removes the eligibility clause for all former employees;
2 It removes the time limits placed on Banked Long Service awards;
Both proposals make no increase in the workload of Staff Travel and neither prevents BA from introducing changes that apply to existing staff only.
I hope you will be able to go to your meeting with Mr Walsh and present these points as I have made them to you. I believe them to be reasonable and fair - and anything that can achieve that qualification will find little long-term objection from the universe of former staff as a whole.
I have been charged by ABAP with communicating your responses to this message and to the meeting you have with Mr Walsh. It has been suggested to me that during the initial consultations with BA on Staff Travel you were placed under a confidentiality clause. I trust you will not be inhibited by any such clause in future but can report to us (and of course to others) in detail the not only the outcome but the detail of your meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Philip Howells
Webmaster
www.abap.org.uk
You will have your own views on the potential effectiveness of this approach given that Ms Mapp and her Committee were, apparently, the "pensioners" with whom BA "consulted" before publishing the scheme. Nevertheless the results of that meeting will give ABAP a good idea of the company's attitude and most importantly whether they have seriously thought through all the implications of their proposal or whether it was hatched up on the back of a fag packet.
Dayne Markham for the Committee of ABAP agreed that I should contact Sigrid Mapp and effectively brief her on our position - a briefing drawn up from the many messages and letters I have received on behalf of ABAP in the past few weeks.
I'm quite sure that some people will feel I have not properly reflected their specific position or view but any concerted action over a matter like this which hits different people in different ways is unlikely to completely satisfy everyone. So if you're one who feels improperly represented please accept my apologies in advance and give me your understanding if not your 100% approval.
This is the message I sent to Sigrid Mapp:
Dear Sigrid
I am webmaster of the ABAP website and the person asked by ABAP to co-ordinate the activity on the specific issue of BA's Staff Travel 2009. I understand you are meeting with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 and have undertaken to ABAP to raise with him the considerable outrage there is from pensioners around the world. Dayne Markham, my main contact on the ABAP committee tells me that he has passed you some numbers of people who are in touch with me directly and an estimate of those who are in touch through those people.
Since these things are changing daily let me update you. I currently have direct contacts from over 100 people. Additionally two regions of the Retired Staff Association have contacted to give us their support and others are meeting to consider doing to in the very near future.
Each pensioner obviously feels most strongly about the aspects of the proposed scheme that affects them and no-one is ignoring the fact that the proposed changes also give some pensioners small improvements in their entitlements, but there is a common thread about which everyone is upset and that is the eligibility.
Eligibility
In this respect the principal objection is the inequity of the proposed changes. Quite apart from the detail, there is no logical reason why the scheme has been adopted with any inequalities in at all. In my blog which is available for you and your colleagues to read at
http://bastafftravel.blogspot.com (Note no "www")
I draw the comparison like this; if the Chancellor announces an increase in the standard rate of income tax, we're all affected but after a few days of press fuming, we all get on with it. On the other hand, if he announces a change that will penalise the poor or advantage the rich, the action raises a reaction from the population which far outweighs the number of people actually involved.
In just the same way, by including elements which mean that some people are disadvantaged while others are not BA has made a rod for its own back. The group on which the change in eligibility impinges is typically:
- amongst the oldest former staff. Ironically those who are least likely to be using their Staff Travel privileges very much, those who are likely to be the soonest to decide that travelling, especially long-distance is not for them and those who are most likely to die sooner than most other pensioners. In other words a small and declining number of people;
- amongst those who left the airline when it was seeking a reduction in staff numbers during the late 70's, 80's and early 90's - who feel they helped the airline when they could just as well have hung on, put in their service and let the airline worry about its staff costs. These people made the decision to accept severance with four things in mind. Firstly was their chance of continued employment on the open market. Secondly, was the lump sum which the company offered them. Thirdly was a deferred pension and fourthly the restitution of the Staff Travel entitlements once they started drawing their pension. They planned their lives with these four elements in mind and are extremely angry at the company deciding at a whim to withdraw one of those elements;
- amongst those are flying crew who were obliged by law to retire from the company at 55. These people are doubly penalised by the new scheme. Compared with other ground staff not only did they retire with up to 10 years less qualification under the new scheme's eligibility, but they also qualified 10 years earlier than other staff. That means that a senior member of management could have up to 20 years more eligibility under this scheme than a member of flying crew.
Is Staff Travel a non-contractual benefit?
The company is a great pains to emphasise that it regards Staff Travel as a non-contractual benefit which can be amended or withdrawn without notice. However, this was not always so and I have copies of letters of severance to retired staff which do not make this clear at all - no mention is made of the possibility that the entitlement can be withdrawn. If the company cannot present documentation that would satisfy a court of law that Staff Travel has always been a non-contractual entitlement it cannot morally (and perhaps legally) use that as a justification for changing the rules retrospectively.
Has Staff Travel become a right by Custom and Practice?
Staff Travel has been a benefit of employment since before WW2 - I have been offered a witnessed affidavit by the elderly wife of a former BOAC manager who recalls travelling on a rebated staff ticket to see relatives in Australia in the early 1930's. I accept that Custom and Practice is a tenuous principle on which to base a logical argument. However if the custom and practice has been extant for almost as long as there has been an airline industry, the principle may be more sound.
Why make the changes retrospective at all?
The company has been disingenuous to the point of naivety in many of the things it has written to staff. In particular is the justification for taking this action. I draw your attention to the third element of my blog at the address above in which I demolish the fatuous arguments written by Clare Hatchwell, Staff Travel Manager, to a pensioner who asked her why these actions were being taken. I won't waste your time by repeating the blog here, merely ask you to read it in detail. My blog includes not merely a demolition of Ms Hatchwell's nonsense but a suggestion which would make an impact on BA's costs in running Staff Travel which would be immediate and fair - that is to limit the number of 90% subload trips any staff, former staff or interline passengers can make in one year. It wouldn't be popular with either existing or former staff - I know some of both groups who will find that irksome to say the least, but it would be fair and it would reduce the costs of Staff Travel.
A reasonable request and practical propositions.
In presenting these strongly held objections on behalf of the pensioners involved, I am not being impractical. I realise that BA wants to introduce a scheme that is as close to that it has proposed for two reasons, firstly it will lose least "face" and secondly it will mean the fewest changes to the details already published.
On behalf of the pensioners I therefore propose that BA changes the scheme in just these two respects:
1 It removes the eligibility clause for all former employees;
2 It removes the time limits placed on Banked Long Service awards;
Both proposals make no increase in the workload of Staff Travel and neither prevents BA from introducing changes that apply to existing staff only.
I hope you will be able to go to your meeting with Mr Walsh and present these points as I have made them to you. I believe them to be reasonable and fair - and anything that can achieve that qualification will find little long-term objection from the universe of former staff as a whole.
I have been charged by ABAP with communicating your responses to this message and to the meeting you have with Mr Walsh. It has been suggested to me that during the initial consultations with BA on Staff Travel you were placed under a confidentiality clause. I trust you will not be inhibited by any such clause in future but can report to us (and of course to others) in detail the not only the outcome but the detail of your meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Philip Howells
Webmaster
www.abap.org.uk
Sunday, 20 January 2008
British Airways leaking from the top
It seems to be symptomatic of public life today that controversial measures taken by governments, institutions etc quickly get leaked, presumably by people in the organisation who are unsympathetic to them. Two streams seem to be leaking from British Airways over the vindictive changes to Staff Travel Word which impinge on pensioners specifically and so hard.
One is that Willie Walsh, the CEO, is personally directing the changes to Staff Travel, though quite why he should personally feel so antagonistic to pensioners is hard to fathom.
It is true that pensioners have not acquiesced as BA management would have wished - through ABAP they opposed the merger of the NAPS and APS - but finessing that into a personal vendetta against we wrinklies requires a leap of logic even a soap opera scriptwriter would find difficult to maintain.
The second leak is that as raison d’être for the changes (and contrary to the answer given in the Retiree FAQs), British Airways claims that Staff Travel is a cost item and penalising the some of the pensioners will go a long way to reducing those costs.
This is patently stupid and demeans the people proposing it.
Firstly, even first year accountancy students know that company finances can be shown to prove practically anything, but this proposition is so fatuous we can even accept the fanciful statement as true for a moment.
What British Airways contends is that to reduce the cost of Staff Travel the company will :-
1 extend the definition of "Travel partner" so that everyone, married or single, can change their nominee every six months;
2 reduce the qualification period for 100% firm travel from 20 years to 5 years;
3 convert a number of 100% subload entitlements to 100% firm tickets each year;
4 double the number of 100% firm tickets to which some people are entitled each year;
5 extend Staff Travel eligibility to people who are not pensioners but who served 10 years or more.
British Airways claims that none of these changes will increase the demand for staff travel. As they say in street parlance today - oh yeah.
That is the nub; British Airways seriously wants everyone to believe that by imposing arbitrary and vindictive limits on the staff Travel eligibility for some elderly former staff it will reduce the costs of Staff Travel. What tosh.
Since logic and commonsense seems to be a commodity in short supply at Waterside allow me to offer this suggestion that really will help British Airways reduce the costs of Staff Travel. Readers could probably suggest more.
Limit the number of 90% subloads any one staff member or pensioner or former staff member or interline traveller can take on BA every year. Since the company claims to have such an accurate handle on financial details, it can choose the permitted number to suit its need for cost reduction but would a reasonable person not feel that six trips a year might be enough holidays for anyone?
The result would be an immediate reduction in the costs BA claims it incurs.
It would also, incidentally, impact immediately on the apparently large number of London-based Virgin Atlantic cabin crew who live in the North of England and use the London-Manchester route as their transport to work - or does British Airways feel that current Virgin staff on subload are a cost burden that can be borne but its own pensioners are not?
What is really puzzling is, if cost reduction was its genuine intention instead of bigoted nonsense why didn’t British Airways choose to make the effect of the changes fair and equal on everybody? Why antagonise one group specifically? This is a change that won’t even affect all pensioners, just some. Why? It’s daft. Every tenet of the skill and art of negotiation argues for making changes apply equally - that way no group is formed which can provide a focus for opposition. When the general rate of income tax is increased we all feel aggrieved but after the press furore has calmed we get on with it. However, a change which favours the rich or penalises the poor immediately gathers its own vociferous agitators who have the propensity and dedication to prolong their opposition out of all comparison.
The illogicality of British Airways taking this action is so startling it seems bound to provoke possible answers to the first question that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Why is Willie Walsh so determined to penalise one specific group of pensioners?
Since comments to this blog can be made anonymously, perhaps one his fellow Board members could explain his reasons.
One is that Willie Walsh, the CEO, is personally directing the changes to Staff Travel, though quite why he should personally feel so antagonistic to pensioners is hard to fathom.
It is true that pensioners have not acquiesced as BA management would have wished - through ABAP they opposed the merger of the NAPS and APS - but finessing that into a personal vendetta against we wrinklies requires a leap of logic even a soap opera scriptwriter would find difficult to maintain.
The second leak is that as raison d’être for the changes (and contrary to the answer given in the Retiree FAQs), British Airways claims that Staff Travel is a cost item and penalising the some of the pensioners will go a long way to reducing those costs.
This is patently stupid and demeans the people proposing it.
Firstly, even first year accountancy students know that company finances can be shown to prove practically anything, but this proposition is so fatuous we can even accept the fanciful statement as true for a moment.
What British Airways contends is that to reduce the cost of Staff Travel the company will :-
1 extend the definition of "Travel partner" so that everyone, married or single, can change their nominee every six months;
2 reduce the qualification period for 100% firm travel from 20 years to 5 years;
3 convert a number of 100% subload entitlements to 100% firm tickets each year;
4 double the number of 100% firm tickets to which some people are entitled each year;
5 extend Staff Travel eligibility to people who are not pensioners but who served 10 years or more.
British Airways claims that none of these changes will increase the demand for staff travel. As they say in street parlance today - oh yeah.
That is the nub; British Airways seriously wants everyone to believe that by imposing arbitrary and vindictive limits on the staff Travel eligibility for some elderly former staff it will reduce the costs of Staff Travel. What tosh.
Since logic and commonsense seems to be a commodity in short supply at Waterside allow me to offer this suggestion that really will help British Airways reduce the costs of Staff Travel. Readers could probably suggest more.
Limit the number of 90% subloads any one staff member or pensioner or former staff member or interline traveller can take on BA every year. Since the company claims to have such an accurate handle on financial details, it can choose the permitted number to suit its need for cost reduction but would a reasonable person not feel that six trips a year might be enough holidays for anyone?
The result would be an immediate reduction in the costs BA claims it incurs.
It would also, incidentally, impact immediately on the apparently large number of London-based Virgin Atlantic cabin crew who live in the North of England and use the London-Manchester route as their transport to work - or does British Airways feel that current Virgin staff on subload are a cost burden that can be borne but its own pensioners are not?
What is really puzzling is, if cost reduction was its genuine intention instead of bigoted nonsense why didn’t British Airways choose to make the effect of the changes fair and equal on everybody? Why antagonise one group specifically? This is a change that won’t even affect all pensioners, just some. Why? It’s daft. Every tenet of the skill and art of negotiation argues for making changes apply equally - that way no group is formed which can provide a focus for opposition. When the general rate of income tax is increased we all feel aggrieved but after the press furore has calmed we get on with it. However, a change which favours the rich or penalises the poor immediately gathers its own vociferous agitators who have the propensity and dedication to prolong their opposition out of all comparison.
The illogicality of British Airways taking this action is so startling it seems bound to provoke possible answers to the first question that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Why is Willie Walsh so determined to penalise one specific group of pensioners?
Since comments to this blog can be made anonymously, perhaps one his fellow Board members could explain his reasons.
Monday, 7 January 2008
Nu-Staff Travel as described in Touchdown Part 2 - more Big Questions
To judge by the amount of space devoted to pictures and specially commissioned cartoons it appears to be the policy of BA to treat retired staff as if they are either uneducated or are suffering the first stages of senility. For example, (and only an example to demonstrate the overall attitude towards pensioners) the second Touchdown release on the subject of Nu-Staff Travel dated December 2007 devotes the entire back page of four to "Answers to the big questions on new travel policy".
So Big are the Questions that of the 116 column centimetres available on the page only 42 are devoted to the answers to them. The remainder are allocated as follows:
11 column centimetres to the title,
15 column centimetres to photos of David Lebrecht, Clare Hatchwell and Alison MacLeod looking pleased with themselves,
16 column centimetres to a humourless cartoon showing retired staff welcoming the changes, and
32 column centimetres to a photograph of an unidentified port with ferries and quayside restaurants.
That’s a total of 74 column centimetres (almost two-thirds of the entire space) not devoted to answering the Big Questions.
Questions not deemed big enough to replace the cartoon or photographs include:
Is the £10 per ticket service charge refundable when tickets expire or are otherwise unused for example those tickets that staff have to hold for alternative routings in case their preferred flight is full or if the other airline doesn’t accept ZED fares?
Why is the Service Charge to be per ticket? That unfairly penalises pensioners living outside London who have to fly to Heathrow for a connection and who often require more than four flight coupons thus more than one ticket. Why not make it a per booking or per person charge?
Will captains still be able to insist their rest seats are allocated to their friends and family ahead of other staff, even senior staff?
What is British Airways doing about getting its new descriptions of eligible travelling companions accepted by other airlines? Do any of the trio have any suggestions how a multi-carrier journey might be undertaken when different carriers have different interpretations? For example, my son lives in Seoul. Under the new Staff Travel scheme I can take my daughter aged 32 LHR-HKG rather than my wife as my travelling companion. Will Cathay Pacific accept her HKG-ICN?
If a travelling companion other than a spouse has been nominated before a pensioner dies, will any residual Nu-Staff Travel rights be automatically transferred to the spouse when he/she starts to draw their widow’s/widower’s pension or must that wish be written into the pensioner’s Will?
Why is it necessary to withdraw banked Long Service awards? Precisely how many are involved and what cost is saved by requiring pensioners to use within the next 12 months concessions they have been saving perhaps for an important family anniversary or occasion in the future? Another attack on prudence perhaps?
No doubt others have other questions that aren’t big enough to qualify for answering in public by BA - and remember Staff Travel Manager doesn’t even have a published address to which you can address questions which she might care to answer.
Perhaps she or any of her colleagues would care to answer here? Pensioners wishing to pose other Big Questions can leave them as Comments or post themselves - please send a note to the blog owner.
So Big are the Questions that of the 116 column centimetres available on the page only 42 are devoted to the answers to them. The remainder are allocated as follows:
11 column centimetres to the title,
15 column centimetres to photos of David Lebrecht, Clare Hatchwell and Alison MacLeod looking pleased with themselves,
16 column centimetres to a humourless cartoon showing retired staff welcoming the changes, and
32 column centimetres to a photograph of an unidentified port with ferries and quayside restaurants.
That’s a total of 74 column centimetres (almost two-thirds of the entire space) not devoted to answering the Big Questions.
Questions not deemed big enough to replace the cartoon or photographs include:
Is the £10 per ticket service charge refundable when tickets expire or are otherwise unused for example those tickets that staff have to hold for alternative routings in case their preferred flight is full or if the other airline doesn’t accept ZED fares?
Why is the Service Charge to be per ticket? That unfairly penalises pensioners living outside London who have to fly to Heathrow for a connection and who often require more than four flight coupons thus more than one ticket. Why not make it a per booking or per person charge?
Will captains still be able to insist their rest seats are allocated to their friends and family ahead of other staff, even senior staff?
What is British Airways doing about getting its new descriptions of eligible travelling companions accepted by other airlines? Do any of the trio have any suggestions how a multi-carrier journey might be undertaken when different carriers have different interpretations? For example, my son lives in Seoul. Under the new Staff Travel scheme I can take my daughter aged 32 LHR-HKG rather than my wife as my travelling companion. Will Cathay Pacific accept her HKG-ICN?
If a travelling companion other than a spouse has been nominated before a pensioner dies, will any residual Nu-Staff Travel rights be automatically transferred to the spouse when he/she starts to draw their widow’s/widower’s pension or must that wish be written into the pensioner’s Will?
Why is it necessary to withdraw banked Long Service awards? Precisely how many are involved and what cost is saved by requiring pensioners to use within the next 12 months concessions they have been saving perhaps for an important family anniversary or occasion in the future? Another attack on prudence perhaps?
No doubt others have other questions that aren’t big enough to qualify for answering in public by BA - and remember Staff Travel Manager doesn’t even have a published address to which you can address questions which she might care to answer.
Perhaps she or any of her colleagues would care to answer here? Pensioners wishing to pose other Big Questions can leave them as Comments or post themselves - please send a note to the blog owner.
Friday, 14 December 2007
British Airways Staff Travel - Travel Rights or Last Rites
Staff travel at reduced rates has been a benefit of employment in British Airways for as long as anyone can remember. In the early years most staff travel was subload (subject to seat availability on departure) and tickets cost about 10% of the published fares.
Over time different forms of staff travel were introduced; firm travel, 100% rebate, 80% rebate, often tied to seniority and or length of service yet 90% subload was by far the most frequently used.
From the earliest days the company made Staff Travel available to pensioners, their spouses and young families. Widows or widowers of deceased pensioners, qualifying for a pension also qualified for staff travel on a similar basis to that which their spouse enjoyed when alive until or unless they re-married.
Before civil partnerships were created the company recognised long-term same-sex partnerships and such partners qualified for staff travel in much the same way as spouses.
In more recent times, staff travel fares have been codified or banded for simplification. They are also subject to tax at the same level and on the same basis as commercial passengers.
Now the company is changing Staff Travel again, but this time specifically penalising all pensioners and those it regards as merely "former employees". The new rules are laid out in the Retirees section of the my.baplc website.
The company goes to great lengths to emphasise that it does not regard Staff Travel as a contractual right but a privilege granted at the company’s discretion, thus giving the company the right to vary the offer at will.
This may or may not be the case but these changes, which can only be regarded as parsimonious, Draconian and illogical, will affect the lives of many, if not all, pensioners and their families.
They are parsimonious because they are targeted specifically at those people who cannot retaliate, those who are generally on a lower income than current employees and who are in the latter parts of their lives when the ability to travel often brings variety and excitement to an otherwise mundane existence.
They are Draconian because they remove at a stroke the basis on which many people have decided to plan for their retirement, moving overseas to be near relatives or in less expensive economies.
They are illogical because the most common form of staff traveller, those on 90% subload, make 100% contribution to the taxes levied against the airline by various governments. Recent changes in the UK for example mean that the airline is taxed on a per aircraft basis, and thus pays the same tax whether the seats are sold or not. Barring staff from these seats on a subload basis means the airline pays more in tax than it need pay.
All pensioners and retired staff to whom I have spoken recall that the opportunity for reduced rate staff travel was always mentioned prominently in job interviews and advertisements for it tended to counterbalance the pay rates which were generally lower than the median for the type of job. If anyone has examples of paid advertising for vacancies from any period which mention Staff Travel I would be very interested.
What is incontestable is that Staff Travel is long established and extensively used and therefore a valued element of airline employment. For long periods of time the company and its forerunners made no major changes to Staff Travel and such stability formed the basis on which staff planned their lives after retirement.
In fact many staff, particularly during the 1970's and 80's when the company was seeking to reduce the size of its workforce, took voluntary severance. Most of these people made their decision whether to leave and help the airline adjust to the new economic situation or to remain in post and retire at normal retirement age based on the totality of the package that they were offered.
This included what they perceived their prospects would be in the broad employment market, and what incentives were offered. These incentives usually included a lump sum, a deferred pension and reinstatement of their qualification for Staff Travel when they started to receive their pension.
What seems grossly unfair and immoral, even if it is not illegal, is for the company to change one of the elements on which the decision was made, 15 or 20 years later. Basic fairness would seem to argue that their entitlement to Staff Travel should, at least, remain as it was at the time of their severance. It might not help those who now enjoy civil partnership status but it would at least allow those who made serious and major decisions based on the totality of the offer made when they accepted severance to live out the remainder of their lives on that basis.
And therein lies the biggest unfairness of all. Pensioners are a declining group. Each month their numbers reduce. Even if their financial circumstances permit, each month fewer are physically able to contemplate long-distance air travel.
To penalise them now, as the new Staff Travel arrangements penalise them makes the airline look like a mean-minded, vindictive bully, exercising its weight against a defenceless group of people who’ve served it loyally for much of their working lives, who have no industrial leverage and who only wish for a relatively short extension of an opportunity to travel for which they worked and planned for up to forty years.
This posting is the opinion of one pensioner. To read the comments of others or to add your own comment, click on the word "Comments" below. To make a posting (as opposed to a comment) on the same or another topic please contact the author for access - click on the word "Comments" below. Comments and postings are moderated by the blog owner but only for moderately good taste and legality.
Over time different forms of staff travel were introduced; firm travel, 100% rebate, 80% rebate, often tied to seniority and or length of service yet 90% subload was by far the most frequently used.
From the earliest days the company made Staff Travel available to pensioners, their spouses and young families. Widows or widowers of deceased pensioners, qualifying for a pension also qualified for staff travel on a similar basis to that which their spouse enjoyed when alive until or unless they re-married.
Before civil partnerships were created the company recognised long-term same-sex partnerships and such partners qualified for staff travel in much the same way as spouses.
In more recent times, staff travel fares have been codified or banded for simplification. They are also subject to tax at the same level and on the same basis as commercial passengers.
Now the company is changing Staff Travel again, but this time specifically penalising all pensioners and those it regards as merely "former employees". The new rules are laid out in the Retirees section of the my.baplc website.
The company goes to great lengths to emphasise that it does not regard Staff Travel as a contractual right but a privilege granted at the company’s discretion, thus giving the company the right to vary the offer at will.
This may or may not be the case but these changes, which can only be regarded as parsimonious, Draconian and illogical, will affect the lives of many, if not all, pensioners and their families.
They are parsimonious because they are targeted specifically at those people who cannot retaliate, those who are generally on a lower income than current employees and who are in the latter parts of their lives when the ability to travel often brings variety and excitement to an otherwise mundane existence.
They are Draconian because they remove at a stroke the basis on which many people have decided to plan for their retirement, moving overseas to be near relatives or in less expensive economies.
They are illogical because the most common form of staff traveller, those on 90% subload, make 100% contribution to the taxes levied against the airline by various governments. Recent changes in the UK for example mean that the airline is taxed on a per aircraft basis, and thus pays the same tax whether the seats are sold or not. Barring staff from these seats on a subload basis means the airline pays more in tax than it need pay.
All pensioners and retired staff to whom I have spoken recall that the opportunity for reduced rate staff travel was always mentioned prominently in job interviews and advertisements for it tended to counterbalance the pay rates which were generally lower than the median for the type of job. If anyone has examples of paid advertising for vacancies from any period which mention Staff Travel I would be very interested.
What is incontestable is that Staff Travel is long established and extensively used and therefore a valued element of airline employment. For long periods of time the company and its forerunners made no major changes to Staff Travel and such stability formed the basis on which staff planned their lives after retirement.
In fact many staff, particularly during the 1970's and 80's when the company was seeking to reduce the size of its workforce, took voluntary severance. Most of these people made their decision whether to leave and help the airline adjust to the new economic situation or to remain in post and retire at normal retirement age based on the totality of the package that they were offered.
This included what they perceived their prospects would be in the broad employment market, and what incentives were offered. These incentives usually included a lump sum, a deferred pension and reinstatement of their qualification for Staff Travel when they started to receive their pension.
What seems grossly unfair and immoral, even if it is not illegal, is for the company to change one of the elements on which the decision was made, 15 or 20 years later. Basic fairness would seem to argue that their entitlement to Staff Travel should, at least, remain as it was at the time of their severance. It might not help those who now enjoy civil partnership status but it would at least allow those who made serious and major decisions based on the totality of the offer made when they accepted severance to live out the remainder of their lives on that basis.
And therein lies the biggest unfairness of all. Pensioners are a declining group. Each month their numbers reduce. Even if their financial circumstances permit, each month fewer are physically able to contemplate long-distance air travel.
To penalise them now, as the new Staff Travel arrangements penalise them makes the airline look like a mean-minded, vindictive bully, exercising its weight against a defenceless group of people who’ve served it loyally for much of their working lives, who have no industrial leverage and who only wish for a relatively short extension of an opportunity to travel for which they worked and planned for up to forty years.
This posting is the opinion of one pensioner. To read the comments of others or to add your own comment, click on the word "Comments" below. To make a posting (as opposed to a comment) on the same or another topic please contact the author for access - click on the word "Comments" below. Comments and postings are moderated by the blog owner but only for moderately good taste and legality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)